Commodities Speculation: A Cause of Food Crises? A Crime Against Humanity?

An important and credible new study, discussed at length in a recent Scientific American Article, seems to have penetrated all the hype and confusion about derivatives and about the causes of the food crises world wide that have caused famine, death, and revolt.:

The study concludes that ethanal has indeed been a major factor but also that the role of commodities market speculation is undeniable.

American and EU central banks and the biggest EU and American Banks are firmly commited to derivatives and resolutely opposed to any regulation, to any clearing houses or any changes that would fundamentally alter the current global free market in derivatives. Derivatives are an essential tool in global risk management, but if this studyis true are we allowing a systemic crime against humanity in not making least those corrections that would remove price distortions.?

Recently 10 ordinary game geeks with no background in scince and medicine solved a very complex problem in the study of HIV. . Can we do that here a TED conversations with this very important question?
Can we go beyond opinion, go beyond what we each already possess in expertise and knowldedge and become together here a global citizens collaborative seeking to understand and offer meaningful solutions to this truly critical global problem?

Can we become a collaborative of investigative journalists seeking the truth and bringing it here via links with commentary?

I think we can and I am proposing that we try. A monumental undertaking for anyone person but I believe the answer is out there in work that has alreday been done and published on the web. I think we as global citizens without a clue about global markets and murky mysteries of derivatives can penetrate this truly critical question. Can offer solutions the experts haven't come up with . I think its a great way to support Occupy Wall Street and use TED.

Oct 2 2011:
Food politics (what you Lindsay, rightly coined as systematic crime) just changed it face. It was, still it is there.

Heard about demand of bio-fuel putting pressure on food price in 2007-08 , now it's validated with a paper !!!, thanks for sharing.

Many will start saying it's "conspiracy theory" , doesn't matter whatever we call it, human being will starve, kids will starve to death in some part of the world , which is not so important to this world !!! Important is we need to meet our energy challenge.

Hunger is one side of the coin, other is threat to democracy. In countries where democracy is in infancy, government in power even if they are doing everything right , they will be at risk of being overthrown. Mass don't understand what is in it with food price vs Bio Fuel or speclations of some powerful street....... they just understand it's failure of the government that just they elected through vote...... what powertful tool power centers all the time having to control the governments of poor countries (some says there is no poor or 3rd world country though !!!)

In the era of "speculative economics" share price goes up or down with speculator's speculation. Does not matter what the balance sheet of a company says, doesn't matter what the past performance of the company says, how hard employees working does't matter they will lose job as speculators speculated something so company need to cut cost !!!..................

Oct 2 2011:
I really first became aware of the corn to ethanol problem during my MBA. No one really doubted the simple fact that when you turn corn into biofuel you take it out of the mouths of the hungry and drive up the prices. I was horrified that we can so simply accept that more profit over here in the biofuel industry justifies the hunger and rising food prices elsewhere.
How often in my classes did someone slough off my concerns with phrases like "this is just good business."

It is not good business to let human beings starve. On a recent TED conversation a frequent commenter justified hoarding of food stuffs as 'just business' and replied that any interference with the unrestrained market is immoral. IMMORAL?

Here is an infographic from the UN which helps to put the world food crisis into perspective.

Oct 2 2011:
As usual Debra you came up with your wisdom and compassion.
That's a very good link to get a snapshot, how buying power pushes people to hunger , not uanavialbility of food.
In those countries where people need to spend more than 30-40% of income for food , a portion of population starves even after spending 100% of their income.......it's my observation of my own country.....

Yes I was pretty sure that's where you were and I see you are well versed in banking history so especially glad to have you with us here exploreing this issue of the relationship between speculation as allowed by de regulation on the banking side and on the OTC side, and food prices.

Greenspan admitted before congress right afer the need for a massive wall street bail out was announced in 2008 that he was wrong..Tht is decades of assurances that markets wold regulate themselves was wrong. And yet nothing meangful has been done to put menaningful checks and oversight back in place. All is exactly as it was from a ;egal and regulatory point of view the day the housing bubble burst. Now evryone is pretty much admitting we have a 1.4 quadrillion derivavtives bubble looming that is vulnerable to systemic failure and could cause a complete market collapse.

The issue of the causal relationship between high food prices and speculation has not received any serious consideation from the Fed here or EU central banks. They seem to be absolutely certain that speculation has caused no distortion at all of market fundamentals.

Have you seen any studies or data that do a better job thatn the Caimbridge study of examining the role of seculation in food prices?

What is your sense of the data and studies that have been brought to this conversation? Is there still an open question in your mind about the role of speculation in food prices?

Oct 6 2011:
@ Lindsay - Absolutely no question. There were always speculations, even welcomed ones, but what we see now is an absolute travesty. Alot of the conversations here have touched on the right subject about the deregulation of commodities in general and the impact that has had. Turning food into yet another "derivatives" market is heartless and immoral.

"They seem to be absolutely certain that speculation has caused no distortion at all of market fundamentals." Yeah, that's what they say publicly. If you see some private interviews you'll see the proverbial bomb is ticking. It is going to explode just like all the other markets did.

"We first became aware of this [food speculation] in 2006. It didn't seem like a big factor then. But in 2007/8 it really spiked up," said Mike Masters, fund manager at Masters Capital Management, who testified to the US Senate in 2008 that speculation was driving up global food prices. "When you looked at the flows there was strong evidence. I know a lot of traders and they confirmed what was happening. Most of the business is now speculation – I would say 70-80%." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/jan/23/food-speculation-banks-hunger-poverty

It goes on to say that Masters believes it will end as bad as Wall Street did and it will blow up.

It's been proven how detrimental to society deregulation is, and I believe that the people responsible for these massive global ponzi schemes and frauds should be prosecuted and perp-walked straight to prison. Just like the housing bubble, they knew this was the outcome of 80 percent of the food market being speculation. They knew people all over the world would begin to starve. They knew the biofuel market morally should have been kept in check. They didn't stop any of it because like everything else in this horrible situation, it gained them LOTS of profit. The food industry is the largest industry in the world. So like my original statement, if you can corner the market and co

I am just seeing your comment for the first time and know from your email of the same date that you are away for several months. Thank you for taking the time to make this comment befo e your departure.

Oct 2 2011:
I;ll give you a thubs up on this next week..I am out for this week they say..

These graphs were fascinating.

The first one which tracks what the Caimbridge study and model address
themselves to and interestingly includes the Lehman brothers collapse as one of the "events"..a sharp drop after that and then the phenomenal rise with the number of peopl ein hunger reaching $1 billion for the first time ever ( what % of the world population is that..almost 18%????)

The second one which shows that in poor nations food takes as much as 50% of earnings. In egypot just before the Tahir square uprising food prices had reached as much as 70% of income ( as I recall) and was a major factor triggering the uprising. This is also addressed in Caimbridge study ..not in the methematical model but in their analysis and interpretation.

Really wonderful graphs..thanks again Debra for bringing them here. to this thread where we are gathering the facts and stats on hunger and the effect recent food price praks have had in the poorest countries.

No no, I'm not saying capitalists are exempt from the consequences of their actions....I'm saying that they mostly don't care about the consequences of their actions. What I meant by their own set of morals is really, corporations don't fit morals into their calculations. For them, it's all about the bottom line and revenue increases every quarter. You have to understand, corporations don't give a rat's ass about world hunger or poverty or immoral treatment of animals or putting toxic chemicals in food. They care about the bottom line and cornering the market. From a business standpoint, food is a valuable commodity to them. If they can control the market, they can control the supply and demand. That's how it works. Try not to twist my words. I'm not defending these giant food corporations that will literally murder for profit. I'm just putting into perspective how rotten and evil they are.

Oct 5 2011:
Debbie Downer! Just kidding, those graphs were startling! I agree with you that starvation is not good business, but you have to realize capitalists and people who believe in complete free-market and unrestrained corporations follow a different set of morals.

Not clear on your position, here Ted..are you suggesting that captilaists are somehow exmept from the consequences of their actions? That it's just ordnary business, ordinary fact that 85% of the wolr'd food is consumed by 2% of the wolrd's people..that the price of food drove unprecedented numbers into povert worldwide? That its safe for the wolrd that so few cororations own and ontrol the wolrd's entire food supply?

Oct 2 2011:
Hello Salim and thanks for helping to launch this TED Conversations experiment in search of common wisdom on the economics of the global food crisis. This new study is very exciting because it trasncends all the hype and rehetoric with the eloquemce and truth of mathemetics ( in another thread I will be inviting our TED mathmeticians to comment on and explain the model.

It would be great if you would be willing to moderate this thread you have stareted. I am hoping many others in our community will bring links and commentary on some of the facts of the world food crisis focusing especially on changes since 2000.

This study sought only to correletae speculation with food prices. It was addressing itself to the refusal of th e world's central banks and the wolrds biggest banks and their regulators to believe that speculation through the derivatives market has had any impact at all on food or oil prices.

This conversation is narrowly focused on that aspect which is blocking any effort to effect changes in the commodities marjet to address these price impacts. But you and I have participated in many discussions together on the politcal aspects of hunger and famine. We know that any price correction we might achieve through reform of the commodities markets will not change politics of famine. I think a thread, this thread on the politics and realities of famine are essential background to this experiement. And of course also the question of how these politics impact price and availability of food.

Oct 2 2011:
A good article Salim establishing that historically times of prosperity have brought rising food prices that push many poverty and hunger. Also interesting in its observation that in a democracy the response will usually be some sort of effrot to relieve the food crisis through aide ( beacuse politicians want to get re relected and because its part of the fabric of democracies) whereas no relief will be given in non democratic nations.

Her's a good quote from it:

"

"Sen demonstrated that the Bengal famine was caused by an urban economic boom that raised food prices, thereby causing millions of rural workers to starve to death when their wages did not keep up. And why didn't the government react by dispensing emergency food relief? Sen's answer was enlightening. Because colonial India was not a democracy, he said, the British rulers had little interest in listening to the poor, even in the midst of famine. This political observation gave rise to what might be called Sen's Law: shortfalls in food supply do not cause widespread deaths in a democracy because vote-seeking politicians will undertake relief efforts; but even modest food shortfalls can create deadly famines in authoritarian societies"

For our work here this article raises two questions.:

(1).did the model take adequate account of the pre-Regan commodities reform ( mid 70's..I think)..of these old patterns between prosperity and high food prices

(2) would the correction in food price distortion from speculation produce benefits that actually reach the parts of the wolrd where hunger and famine are most pressing?

Oct 6 2011:
You know, I woke up this morning and I realized that Charles Dickens had pinpointed this problem of food speculation in A Christmas Carole back in 1843. What was Scrooge doing in many scenes? Driving up the price of corn just before his famous lines "are there no work houses...........well then they had better die then and decrease the surplus population".

The issue with derivatives is that a lare part of that 1.4 quadrillion in notional value at the moment is in fact pure speculation ad not the facilitation of investment that Bernanke and industry insider claim. In effect central banks all over the world are being used to finance pure speculation that does not promote or serve investment,To me, that is a key public policy question all by itself..are we using central bank loans to finance pure speculation? Are we allowing markets created to support and further and lend stability to investment and growth to finance innovation to actually be subverted in a way that interferes with the original purpose of creating and regulating these markets.I don't have a sense yet of how much of the derivatives market is just pure profit seeking predatory exploitation of the economy and of our markets and how much is what Ben Bernanke says it is..what many insiders say it is.a vehincle for liquidity, stablity etc. etc that allows the fueling of our economy at much higher leverage ratios ( that's the whole thing with derivatives..more mprofit with more leverage)I just readd somewhere ( a reliable source) that the Fed itself as other central banks is leveraged 50 to 1...an all time high. It was over leveraging that brought down the markets in 2008..the reserves just weren't there to cover all the contracts presented for settlement..that's what our tarp money paid for..we essentially covered the gambling losses..The food issue and the energy issue as well are especially

Wanted to bring to this thread on stats and research on causes of the food crisis this very interesting 2008 study by the USDA which gives some insight into global supply and demand for food.in the past two decades. Overall it suggests that market fundamentals have driven food prices high.

From 2000 to 2008, according to this study "global consumption of aggregate grains and oilseeds exceeded production in 7 of the 8 years since 2000”

From what I see of documentation provided on the Caimbridge model announced as proving that speculation caused the food crisis, the model did not control for or take account of supply/demand gaps or other aspects of market fundamentals.

The USDA study provided more backgrond to Bernankes comment in February at the Washington Press Club about changes in eating habits in China and Brazil being a factor. The study says that prosperity in the 90's co-ocurred with higher consumotion of meat which, because of grain feeds added further pressure to a tight global food market. (Every pound of beef takes two or more pounds of grain to produce).The study also mentioned several other factors, not accounted for in the Caimbridge model that set up a sort of "perfect storm" for the food crisis

.(1) reliance on storage had diminished considerably as concerns globally about food security dimisnished..so when the short fall between supply and demand ocurred global reserves were low

.(2) production response was frustrated by weather in the case of Russia ( a major grains exporter) and higher production costs as the costs of fertilizer, weed killers and insecticides were influenced by rising oil prices.

The USDA study brought out the role of the falling dollar in escalating food prices and higher demand. The falling dolar in relation to many other key currencies made it possible forimportaing natins with stringer currencies toi , a sthe study said, consume more no matter what the price ( on wolrd markets trades are settled in dollars That must also mean that the $ shown as price rises aren't adjusted in any way to reflect the lower value of the dollar..

Overall the USDA study supports and explains the resistence on the part of the FED and other Central banks to consider speculation as a major factor in the food crisei post housing bubble. The Caimbridge model dorsn't seem to account adeqautely for these strong underlying market fundamentals of yields, production costs, consumption, changes in consumption, the falling dollar and low food reserves and may not therefore make the case for speculation as a cause.

Since this USDA study was pre-housing bubble collapse, preceding the huge drift of post 2008 speculation into commodities it is not a direct refutation of the role of speculation to heich the Caimbridge and other studies have pointed.

Perhaps more a fuel on the fire scenario? That speculain drove food prives alreday moving up from market fundamentals even higher?

Reading this study took me back to Bernanake's February 2011 comments at the Washington Press Club about the role and purpose of Central Banks. In reminding questioners there that Central banks are concerned aboutthe helath of their own countries economy not the health of global economy or the impact of global phenomenon on specific countries. In otherwords, central banks don't create policies to end wolrd hunger, they create policies to keep their own currency strong, their own country strong. That intervention for relief and better sceurity against food crises should come from the UN and NGO.s?

Oct 12 2011:
Minutes after making my post calling for data on the proportion of speculative trading in food in global markets
( http://www.ted.com/conversations/6056/commodities_speculation_a_cau.htm) I found this stunning article by Timothy Wise at his blog offering jaw dropping stats on the proportion of pure speculation in food commodity markets and who controls that market:

"Some $9 trillion in trades take place in commodity derivatives, with 80-90% in over the counter (OTC) trading, outside of public scrutiny. Five banks control 96% of derivatives activity, giving a few players decisive market power. The ratio of non-commercial speculators to commercial hedgers (those with a commercial interest in the traded commodity) is by some estimates 4:1, roughly a reverse of the shares ten years ago when speculators accounted for 20% of the activity. Then, such speculators indeed provided liquidity to the markets without overwhelming them. That is no longer the case. "

If Tim's article is correct, and I think all would agree his reporting on this and other issues of interest to us at TED, is expert and responsible, it is impossible to understand why the UN FAO wouldn't immediately call not just for classifications but a halt to all purely speculative trading in foods.

.Why is that?

What is the reluctance?

In another article that I will bring the link on another expert and responsible analyst suggests that its almost impossible to take control back. He said that key insiders just laughed at the idea that any attempt to limit positions or elminate speculation..that it would just displace the same volume of speculation to undetectable under the table trades. That there is just so much money in food speculation that no one, especially the five banks reponsible for 95% of global food speculation will simply give it up no matter what regulators say or do.. They will simply find another way to to do it

Oct 13 2011:
Not sure what $9 trillion represents, but it does not seem meaningful here. It's even much too big to be a figure for gross notional of all commodity derivatives (including energy, metals, and with huge duplication). Maybe it's cumulative activity (flow/volume/turnover not position) for all commodities measured over some period of time. (Notional and gross exposures for OTC from BIS here: http://www.bis.org/statistics/otcder/dt1920a.pdf)

Going by the percentages in the link after searching "corn", pure unambiguous producers/users had positions 21.2% and 36.5% of open interest for longs and shorts. This undercounts because a good chunk of the non-reportable traders are probably small farmers and users and these hold 9.6% and 14.8% of long/shorts. Moreover, a large portion (40.1%) of positions are spread positions, where holders are neither long nor short overall. Equivalently, if you add up all longs and shorts you only get 59.9%, not 100%; so dividing by 0.599 adjusts percentages above to represent a portion of just the non-spread OI. You get 35.4%, 60.9%; 16.0%, and 24.7%.

People make different things out of all these numbers. To make the market appear dominated by speculators you could just report only 21.2% and 36.5% of OI are traditional hedgers (so 28.85% overall). To make speculation look small you could go as far as saying that perhaps 60.9 + 24.7 = 85.6% of shorts are farmers hedging. The same approach for longs gets 51.4% -- there is a clear natural imbalance.

Also in the data, the dealers you were concerned about have 13.7%, 3.6%, 6.7% of OI in long/short/spreads.

Wow!! You are way past me in this very technical reply..can you dumb it down a bit?

Tim's article isn't only about food. It's about commodities markets in general. The bottom line he is presenting there..that speculative (iei non commerccial..not supporting the actual process of bringing a commodity to market) trades out number commercial trades by 4 to 1. This shows up accross all markets, financial too.

Perhaps you could expain to me..to all of us, the "all long issue" in food commodities. I see that referred to all the time and I see many pointing to that as a problem. I get the general idea that the speculative derivatives at issue in food markets, any commodity when its market fundamentals indicating scarcity and a trend upward in prices taking only only long positions on the upward price itself often through predatory algorithms that just stalk the markets looking for what is rising. They are not interested in food per se..they are studying food per se. They are just making buys, creating contracts acoss a range of markets searching for combinations that produce the highest yields. like aflock of migratry birds they move in and out markets , financial to commodities, commodities to financial just sseravhing to maximimize profit.

Also in contrast to the normal and intneded functioning of commodities markets I read somewhere that this whole derivatives market is drives on feeds and trades that are possible because only 2% of derivatives contracts actually settle or are ever expected to settle..they are more like risk management than investment . So seven though the value of all outsanding contracts( their notional value) is hundreds of times larer than the underlying assets they are about money still gets made through trades and associated fees. It;s sort of like musical chairs..that only becomes an issue when the music stop and whoever is holding the contacts has to pay up.

Oct 13 2011:
Please do look through the numbers to be comfortable with what they mean. Spread positions increased over an extended period of time, so producer/user positions as a portion of OI (eg, without grossing up by 1/0.599) have trended down.

But it's not clear increased spread positions have an ill effect on market function or pricing, and I think all this demonstrates the alarms about rampant speculation are overdone.

So the Wise piece to me is not a very solid summary of who makes up the ags markets. Besides all these issues with numbers, I think a bunch of things in there that sound scary are just wrong. Eg, I don't believe this: "Worse, the index funds are mandated to keep the value of their commodities in strict proportion, so that when the prices and value of energy products go up the funds have to buy more corn and soybean futures to maintain the mandated proportions."

You might have noticed there is a big imbalance between the long and short positions of producers/users. They skew short by a lot. This is entirely natural, because a farmer's entire revenue comes from crop sales and they are very motivated to hedge it to pay for equipment, fertilizer, farmhands, etc. In contrast, ag prices are only a small portion of a baker's costs and they have flexibility to increase product price to compensate.

Entirely as a consequence of this market structure, the non-traditional hedgers/speculators must skew long. It's been that way since the earliest days of ag markets and it's not some design to create bubbles.

Want to connect you to a new conversation regards 300,000 people marching from NYC to DC to protest genetically modified foods (GMOs). Monsanto is involved in 90% of GMOs. No doubt their effect has impact on trade speculation.

Oct 12 2011:
Hi Andrea..another one of my pet issues and very significant in the whole unraveling of 3 decades of pure rape of poorer countries to get them out from under onerous terms and conditions of food aid and able to move toward food security and investment in their own sustanable agriculture.

My next big project here at tED though will be on the tar snads/keystone pipeline scnadal as that is immediate and seems to be getting lost. It will be a reality if we don;t shine a big light on it.

Oct 9 2011:
so true, Debra,..that was Buckie's ( Buckminster Fuller's) premise in the "World Games"..that all essential resources on the planet could take care of us all if we managed access and distribution in service to humanity and not greed.

At the moment..for the forseeable future..food is a global scarce resource..we are consuming globally more than we are producing on an annual basis...but demand , who has access, who can afford food at any prices has nothing to do with need. Even if bio-fuels drop completely out of the picture globally in competing for food grains the basic picture won't change..the spread between basic need, real need and consumpton will just grow.

We, the developed nations of the world, the power centers, set all that up..Clinton admitted at a UN speech in 2009 that he and all the other western leaders made a huge mistake in adopting the strategy we did for poor nations instead of focusing our global collaborative efforts on food self sufficiency in the world's poorest nations.

That the poorest nations , the hungriest nations, have been moved further and further from food self sufficiency through UN, IMF and Wolrd Bank "anti poverty initiatives" over the past three decades is exactly what makes them now the most vulnerable to dramatic rises in food prices and to the huge inflation of those prices atttributable to speculation.

All the signs ( according to market insiders involved in food commodites) points to more of the same and even more speculation in food prices which will hit first and hardest in the world's poorset nations who are not food self sufficient because of global policy and cause countless millions more to fall into famine.

I am thinking we need a UN declaration of emergency to immediately remove all food and food production products from speculation and to encourage cash based food aid to the world hungriest nations.proportionate to each nations over consumption.

I think my summary is correct..that it is exactly our policies via the UN, IMF and Wolrd Bank that has left the worlds poorest and hungriest nations completely unable to muster any defense against the continuing trend to higher food costs and the huge inflation of that trend via speculation

.I also think it is actually a global humanitarian criss and that it is not been viewed or recognized that way and that a UN declaration of global humanitarian emergency is appropriate.

From what I have read in the immersion this conversatin has required..although everyone recognizes the truth of the role of speculation in further inflating prices that were rising for other reasons, there is nothing afoot to take any immediate action and there are so many different exchanges causing this, including Canada's own where about 10% of the indexes on commodities exchanges are purely speculative.

A UN declaration of humanitarian emergency might have some effect in expediting changes everyone already knows are essential to global food security. We have acknolweged from the outset here that taking speculation out of food prices globally would not cure wolrd hunger. But I think we have to act globally and immediately to take responsbility for the fact that we, the developed nationsof the world are largely responsible for the fact that the world's hungriest nations don't have food self sufficiency. We caused the vulnerability they have to food price trends. Millions more are about to be driven into hunger by a continuation of speculation and a continuation of food price increases. That seems absolutely clear. Absolutely certain.

I think we do have to take collective immediate action through cash aide for food relief not through governments but through reputable food relief NGO's .

Oct 9 2011:
I think the emergency declaration should also address debt forgiveness and exemption from the onerous terms and conditions the IMF/Wolrd bank imposed on these nations (eg agreeing not to invest in their own infrastructure, agreeing to use ( ie buy) genetically modified seed or foreign fertilisers and insecticides..imposing technology that added to debt and caused great harm , rrquired privatization of water and other resources).

Vineet, Salim and I have been collaboratively exploring this and our posts below include many links.I have many questions about the UN program of debt relief and many questions about whether countries like Bangladesh who have been deemed ineligible because their debt is not large enough in relation to its economy.will get relief from any onerous terms and conditions.I think a UN emergency declaration must provide immeduate 100% relief from these outrageous loan conditions and provide an immediate relief down to an acceptable level for each nation with no additional requirements except a commitment of all resoures to food self sufficiency.

What we did was rape..this is restitution.

The UN FAO barely mentioned speculation at the 2009 Summit on Food Security in Rome and at that time did not see a continuing trend in riisng food prices. They were emphasing each nations responsibility for its own food security. Months later in February 2011 they joined France in its call to remove speculation from food commodities:

Oct 10 2011:
Lindsay maybe we need to see what really mean "developed" because if is just related to money is out of humanism. Surely the poor nations are blessed with the underdevelopment. Then we have to see what really is poverty.

Oct 11 2011:
As always you get right to the universal heart of things..to the heart of me..to what in me felt it important to make whatever contribution I could to this important global issue.

Can we expect Corporations to consider unintended and unknown social and economic impacts of their search for profit?

Aren’t their actions in that regard only circumscribed by law or by public ( or perhaps legal) encounter that brings to light the unintended consequences of their actions.?

The “social responsibility” part of any large corporation usually is driven only by what has been brought to their attention by law or highly visible public outrage..it isn’t built in voluntarily.

If we allow ourselves to get distracted by the polarities and dichotomies of “ developed vs. undeveloped”, or “good vs evil “or labels for corporate actions like “greed” then we are ensnared in judgment ( and therefore ego) and not making our best contribution to truth to justice to shining a light on what is happening.

That is my purpose here in this conversation..to shine a light on a truth that regulatory authorities and the U.N. FAO have been reticent to admit or call for action on. To do what I can, what we can with this unique opportunity of TED conversations to heighten awareness, build pressure on the U.N. and FAO and regulators, to name names and shame those ta the center of this and hopefully to push towards solutions that come in time.
Shining that light responsibly, accurately, unwaveringly is what matters.

:"One questioner focused on the Fed's possible role in driving food prices and whether those rising prices have fueled social unrest in the Middle East Bernanke said that factors other than food prices may be playing a role in the protests in Egypt and elsewhere, and that global food prices are rising mainly because of trends in emerging markets. Those emerging economies, and the richer diets that go along with rising prosperity, are driving the rise in food prices, Bernanke said. He called it "entirely unfair" to blame the Fed's loose monetary policy, including the recent program of Fed bond purchases known as QE2."

The remarks were made at a February 2011 meeting at the Washington Press Club

Collecting and documenting what central banks in the US, EU and elsewhere, those of regulatory agencies have gone on record saying/writing about the effect of speculation on food prices is key so I am stratingthis thread to capture other links and commentary which memeber sof the TED community might offer here via link and analysis/comment.

In plain terms, derivatives are THE cause of the Financial Crisis. They are behind EVERY failure/ default that has occurred. Almost no one is willing to address this issue or include it in the discussion of how to insure we don’t have a Second Round of the Crisis confirming the fact that no one has a clue how to resolve this situation.

If you add up the value of every stock on the planet, the entire market capitalization would be about $36 trillion. If you do the same process for bonds, you’d get a market capitalization of roughly $72 trillion.
The notional value of the derivative market is roughly $1.4 QUADRILLION.
$1.4 Quadrillion is roughly:
-40 TIMES THE WORLD’S STOCK MARKET.
-10 TIMES the value of EVERY STOCK & EVERY BOND ON THE PLANET.
-23 TIMES WORLD GDP.
What’s a derivative?
Derivatives are securities whose value is “derived” from an underlying asset (a mortgage, credit card debt, etc). A derivative is NOT an asset. It’s, in reality, nothing, just an imaginary security of no tangible value that banks/ financial institutions trade as a kind of “gentleman’s bet” on the value of future risk or securities.

In laymen’s terms derivatives are merely bets without any real value. It amounts to a gambling bet about whether your neighbour will default on the payments for his house. AND it is absolutely UNREGULATED.

They are not just on mortgages though, they can be on a wide range of things that financiers do not want to bother going to Las Vegas to gamble on. There is no derivative clearing house. No official report explains the risk or actual value of these things and the notional value of the derivatives market is not the same thing as the actual "at risk" money underlying these securities.
It is entirely fictional to claim that these things have any real tangible value or perform any kind of wealth generation.

Oct 5 2011:
Debra, derivatives are not the only cause behind the financial collapse. The deregulation of derivatives certainly played a huge factor to the collapse, but there were other issues at play. I also don't agree with Lindsay about derivatives being necessary. A good analogy for the evilness of derivatives is with the credit default swap derivative agencies like AIG - Imagine you buy a house. You need insurance on that house. In the world of derivatives, hundreds of other people could also take insurance out on your house that they purchase through a company like AIG. Now if your house burns down, the number of losses in the system becomes proportionately larger. Since CDOs (Credit default swaps) were unregulated, companies like AIG didn't have to set any money aside to cover losses. Instead they took the money from speculators and shoveled out bonuses to the top brass (over 9 billion dollars in 2007 just in AIG) as soon as the contracts were signed. But if the CDOs later went belly up (when your house burns down), the insurance company would be on the hook to pay up to the speculators. They couldn't. These people were taking massive risks with money they didn't manage properly. During the bubble , AIG's financial products division in London produced almost 1 trillion (thats 12 zeros) in credit default swaps, many that were backed by subprime mortgages. These are the kind of heinous and immoral business practices that screwed the global economy over and made a few people very very rich.

Oct 5 2011:
Thanks TED for your perspective. I am always eager to learn. Can you tell me more? Can you tell me if you think that the financial collapse and the immoral behaviour of places like AIG and others would have been possible if it had not been for the repeal of the Glass Stegall Act in the USA? Canadians fared far better in the melt down because we still had stodgy old laws that kept our most ambitious, most creative banking imaginations in their cages to the great relief of all of our citizens.

Oct 5 2011:
What a great question. Just a frame of reference for people not so well versed in economic policies: The Glass-Steagall Act was an act passed by Congress in 1933 that prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities.

To answer your question, no I don't think it would have been near AS possible. The repeal of Glass-Steagall though, was a finality to a chain of events set in motion in the 70s. Then, in the 80s, under the Reagan Administration, we saw implementations of policies that would ultimately lead to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. This corruption in American economics is bi-partisan and spreads throughout the government on both sides of the political spectrum and is pushed by special interest groups with their hands in the pockets of virtually everyone on Capital Hill. It is the consequence of misinformation and fraud...and stupid Americans who vote against their own self interests. America is an optimistic and naive society that falls into the sack easily when one liners and pithy little maxims are whispered into its ear.

I've always respected Canada, and thought America should be taking some cues from its northern neighbor. But when you think about it, America is usually last on board for moral social movements like say, abolishment of slavery, equal rights for women, equal rights for all races, tolerance of homosexuals, health insurance for everyone, etc etc. It doesn't surprise me that no ques are taken from Canada. Americans tend to take a condescending view of anyone other than themselves.

Even so, I just cannot agree that the American people are stupid. I see them as optimistic and trusting, not stupid. Never was there as trusting a society as is depicted in the 1930s and 40s movies. I watched one the other day with Doris Day called "It happened to Jane." In it, direct democracy prevailed in a town on the eastern seaboard of the USA. Who knew Doris Day would play a radical who fought a railroad corporation to its knees through protest, media and the courts? Who KNEW that Doris Day would lead by example for a protest movement 70 plus years later?

We should all be able to trust that our educational institutions will not teach us absolute falsehoods where it comes to money, that our governments will tell us the truth and that our societies will not be high jacked by organizations that combine the military and industry in ways that will ultimately make our country and other countries less secure.

The American people did not deserve tyranny and debt slavery in exchange for trust. One of the things we are all learning is just why the revolutions against elites have taken place over the centuries. It seems that the unmitigated greed of the upper crust in almost every society gets beyond the ability of the masses or trusting people to ignore and they shake up the tail that wags the whole dog- sometimes violently but occasionally nonviolently. Let's hope this crop of elites has the good sense to bow to the realities of our situation and that those who believe in Ghandi's ways prevail.

No, the blame for those things does not belong to the victims but to the criminals who perpetrated this fraud and this crime against the nation and the world economy. It is not too late to make it right. I hope this batch of elites makes it easy on themselves and the rest of us and not only steps aside but puts back some of their blood money so that more people do not starve or lose their homes.

Oct 6 2011:
Well, we could argue just on the grounds of whether the majority of Americans are stupid or not, but that's a pointless and speculative argument. I want to be optimistic I really do, about education, about economics, about politics, about almost everything. Then I step outside. There;s no denying in my mind that evilness has taken control of the world. From this awful food distribution, to the rich stealing money from the poor, to religious fanaticism that hasn't been so violent in nature and theme since the Protestant Reformation...the list goes on and on. It seems with this illusion of money comes the will to bring harm to other people. Rousseu once said "The first person to stake out land was the beginning of pestilence and war." There are many great things about the human race. May of us are compassionate, caring, empathetic, and loving. But one thing has always been the most negative overall trait...greed. Right now there's so much unchecked greed happening, it's causing even more death and oppression than it ever has. John Locke believed that every human was virtuous and believed in small civil governments and a three branch system that inspired Thomas Jefferson and his buddies to adopt those very ideas in the experiment we now today call America. There were those (see Adam Smith) who realized our system of trading self interests had the potential to produce great harm and devastation to the world if the greed of that system was not properly handled. It wasn't. What we see now is an intentional dumbing down of society, not by an individual entity hellbent on domination, but by industries as a whole to make it easier to spread misinformation and suppress rebellion. It may sound far-fetched and conspiracy theory like but all one has to do is step back and take in the gravity of everything that's happening almost all at once. I see big things happening that will shape our world in ways we can't yet fathom. The question is, who will stand up and fight for it?

but derivates are also good tools for hedging the risks but it should be totally banned for speculations which is gambling.

It is the responsibility of regulatory bodies to regulate these instruments & put limits on it. otherwise the dealers will take maximum risks to maximize their return ignoring the risks it exposes to financial system..

I feel that It is entirely fictional to claim that derivatives have any real tangible value or perform any kind of wealth generation. Wall ST. perpetuated this fiction and it is also fictional that Wall Street is able to value these things or price them accurately. A bookie could do a better job. But thanks to Wall Street’s lobbying power, they’ve become the centerpiece of the financial markets.

As early as 1998, soon to be chairperson of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Brooksley Born, approached Alan Greenspan, Bob Rubin, and Larry Summers (the three heads of economic policy) about derivatives. She said she thought derivatives should be reined in and regulated because they were getting too out of control. The response from Greenspan and company was that if she pushed for regulation, the market would implode. The following article will tell you the whole story.

Brooksley Born was not the only one trying to get Greenspan (a follower of the Ayn Rand school of philosophy) to see reason. There was another man who was trying mightily to let in the light of fact. His name is William White and you can read about that here:

Thanks for this. Over the 10 years I was on the NYS Baning Board the pressure was clearly there for banks to be able to get into the derivatives market.They were just itching to repeal Glass Stegal which had kept our banking system safe and sound and harnessed to financing economic growth for decades by separating banking from speculation..i.e. what goes on in the stock market or even the bsuiness of insurance. The business of banking was supposed to be about providing liquidity and funding for business growth through sound loans and lines of credit to smooth out cash flows and provide funds for investment in new technology, new physical plant, business expansion. That was also always the function of investment banks, howver investment banks were allowed more leeway as they are using all private capital..no consumer or business deposits.

I totally tuned out of banking from the time I resigned the Banking board in 1997 until the crash. Catching up of late and in particlra reading lots of insider source documents like papers and advisories from EU and US central banks, I can see that derivatives are firmly and irrevcoably part of our global financial system. They are here to saty. I am also seeing that they do have many useful and essential functions that do stabilize market functions and do serve market fundamentals.

Well put in an October 2010 study by the Wolrd Development Movement:

"Speculation on commodity markets is sometimes referred to as ‘investment’, but it is nothing
of the sort. Buying commodity derivatives is attempting to skim money from a notional value of
outputs from the ‘real’ economy. It is not investing capital to increase production.
Of money spent on commodity derivatives, not £1 is invested in increasing commodity
production. "

Oct 3 2011:
HI Lindsay, I need to learn more about what you know regarding the useful and essential functions of derivatives that serve to stabilize market functions. Can you send me to more source readings please?

Oct 3 2011:
Debra, a few more thoughts that are more centered on the core issue of your comment on the role of derivatives in the economy..globally and for each nation. I am learning side by side with you and others here.

What I see in the source documents of the FED and EU central banks, in the industry insider source documents is that the original intent and urpose of derivatives is to provide a sort of global, privately financed risk management system..pooling the many different kinds of risks associated with a specific real wolrd transaction or type of transaction. That makes sense to me and as I begin to explore Central bank weddedness to derivatives I am beginning to see what derivatives are supposed to do andnow that i understand a bit about "notional value" I am not feeling as panicky as I was about the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble."

For example ( and maybe not a good one as I am just beginning to grasp all this).

A company wants a $1million loan ina sector that his bank specializes and with which the company has had a long term credit relationship..but the bank's portfolio won't have the diversification it needs if it gets over exposed in the company' sector ( or over exposed to that one customer)..through the derivatives market which pools that amongst pivate parties.The "notional value" added on the derivatives side is $1million but the expectation is that the company won't default (like insurance); the expectation is the derivatives contract will never settle..like insurance..we pay our premiums year after year..no losses. A fee is paid to the entity taking the risk and the fees are the real income. That same bsuiness plan may generate risk demand that is many times the value of the project as each risk is separately absorbed at the full value of that risk.

Oct 3 2011:
I guess I do understand that the first level derivatives perform the function of insurance and no one really objected to this use. It went to extreme insanity though as it got further and further from being linked to any original or tangible asset. Do you see this as the problem as well?

We all need to learn more..me too. if we are going to take a crack at coming up with a meaningful contribution on whether speculation drives food prices.

We need to understand what derivatives are supposed to do and why central banks are so resistent to any tinkering via clearing houses, regulation etc .My post below ( we must have been writing to each other at the same time) is a very crude effort to explain what I am beginning to understand on that side. One of the best explanations with examples that I saw is a regional Federal Reserve document. In general most of the "pro side" on which resistence to any change is based is found in these industry source documents.

The issue with food is that the FED and EU central banks simply seem to have turned a deaf ear to what appears to be very persuasive evidence, and even insider acknowledgment ( did you see the quotes I posted this morning in reply to another commenter?) of price distortions that are not rooted in real market conditions.They have drawn such a tight circle around any attempts to oversee, regulate or limit the derivatives market in any way that they simply aren't willing to take a focsued look at the food issue and what might alleviate price distortions there

.It is my understanding that commodities are a small part of the "notional value" of derivatives and food even tinier and I have seen references from reputable economists suggesting that the price effect of speculation on food derives from thevolume of derivatives $ in comparision to the overall size of the commidities market... that it overwhelms the underlying market funadmentals. This may not be true of other sectors and may be a reason the FED and central banks have been deaf..because they haven't looked at that aspect. Maybe that's the key ..getting the fed to see that deriivatives in the commodities sector do drive price.

It's interesting because it lays out in pretty simple terms why central banks (ours and the EU)are so hot on derivatives. with some excellent and persuasive example.

More interesting than that, in terms of trying to undertsand why central banks and market regulators are not willing to listen on the link between market speculation and food prices this memo shows where their focus really is..what they are really thinking. Their only concern about erivatives, and I think this runs through ost of the "insider" white papers on derivatives..is its vulnerability to systemic failure..caused by and sell offs. In this paper and a many others they also seem concerned about the lack of data on where these derivatives are in the markey making hard to anticipate or forecast and respond to things that might go wrong.

So far I haven't found any "insider sources" that are even internalyl responding to the issue of the link between speculation through derivatives and the price of key commdities like food and oil. It eally seem to be a deaf ear. My sense from central bank and insider source documents is they totally dismiss, pay no attention to anything that suggests a causal relationship between food prices and speculaion.

,Nice to meet you and thanks for joining our collaborabitive search for truth on this issue of whether speculation in commodities markets distorts prices above market fundamentals. Your Alan Greenspan quote is correct and well documented. He was the architect of the free market global structure on which derivatives have thrived and grown. Testifying before Congress right after the 2008 mortgage crisis was made public Greenspan admitted that he was wrong about markets self regulating to a level that serves the public interest. There was continual pressure from many sectors, in particular NGO's working to eradicate hunger and poverty, to protect the world's food supplies from the prce impacts of speculation. It was princpally Greenspan's assurance that Central banks,regulators and legislative bodies relied on. He admitted he was wrong.

Thank you for the wonderfyl link on William White..a Central Bank insider who is telling the truth. But there is still almost immutable resistance from the Federal Reserve , the financial services sector and conservative elected officials to consider any restraints or additional oversight at all in the derivatives market. I have been reading original source documents including thise of the Fed and EU central banks . It is clear they are completely committed to derivatives.In commodities the main derivatives market is in index funds.price futures and most typically in hedge funds which co mingle food commodities with others like oil, silver and gold. The original intent of the commodities market was to fund and facilitate investment in production aand distribution of essential natural resources..to stablize and eliminate volatility from food markets. The problem with derivatives is they are not actually providing any liquidity that serves production and by swinging in and out markets causing volatility. The problem is derivatives aren't hinged to real supply and demand ..

Oct 8 2011:
Rafi the real revolutions are done with instruments and tools, not with weapons. Of course we also need intelligence, creativity and sensibility to build a mass construction...as Luigi said.

The economy has a lot of shadows an masks, but if we defined the economy from the ethics, we found the real essence: Sharing with justice the proofit that we deserve from our actions.

Today we are in confussion about. We think economy as money economy. And this is wrong focus

And and a few thoughts.Some analysts say that food prices are close "to trend".. which has chased smart money out of food speculation ahead of the bust. Sounds like good news but the holders of all these speculative contracts are the pension funds of teachers, firemen, city santitation workers, ordinary folk whose pensions (the new term in the industry is "final income") will take big hits... Already most are seriously underfunded through a combination of "dumb money " investments in things like food derivavitives into which they were lead like sheep.. The smart money has already been taken out of the market . They are on to plastics. The "dumb money" is your pension, your parents pension. And the double whammy is these pension funds are insured by you and me the 99%..in the US through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Fund which is itself already technically bankrupt and can't really afford one more corporate failure, one more failing pension..these are the giants..these pension funds.

And who will pay for this bailout as we come to understand the commodties bubble has burst? Us..the 99%..the tax payers.

Who will be hurt the most? Us, the tax payer, the 99%. Wall Street has already taken its profits.

But is this good news for the billion already in chronic hunger, for the 70-80 million new global citizens falling into chronic hunger every year? No it's not. Because the plutonomy controls the world's food supply and food prices are going up and up and up with no sign of a fix in sight.Payments to farmers/producers went up 6.9% this past month..It hasn't reached your food budget yet but it will wihin 30 days or so..slowly..big retail chains have agreed to bring the change up slowly so as not to cause a panic. Can you afford an expected overall rise of 10% in what you pay for basic food stuff at your local supermarket?Occupy your food Supply..as Aerin at Occupy Cafe says

Oct 27 2011:
As we approach the closing week of this discussion, and with little hope of regulatory or statuatory relief from the effects of pure speculation on food prices anywhere on the horizon, I invite all of who have participated and those who have been monitoring to offer their views on how to keep this important issue in the fore and how to continue to press for relief.

This one insider blog suggests that the 800 pound gorilla in the room will simply feed himself to death and take a big tumble..but when?..how long will that take?..how many more 100's of millions will slide into glovbal hunger?

"In the author’s opinion, these Funds are a terrible investment and you should stay away from them. Yes, commodity prices may continue their rise in the future. However, it’s inevitable that prices will get too high and the weight of higher production, will force prices back down. The commodity bull market is very much like the bull market in stocks in the late 1990s. During that time, money was pouring into Mutual Funds at an unprecedented rate. This caused stock markets to move higher and higher until they greatly exceeded any reasonable fundamental valuation. The same is true for commodity prices. Investor demand rather than true supply/demand fundamentals are constantly driving prices higher. Eventually, commodity producers will dramatically increase production to profit from higher prices and prices will violently correct downward"

What about a massive campaign of divestment focused on the wolrd's largest pension plans or charitable/religipus institutions, ege the catholic church? Could an early cash in of the massive passive by key investors hasten the "natural demise" of this insidious part of the market and its insidious effect on the world's poorest and most vulnerable?

Oct 27 2011:
Lindsay
For some reason I have not been following this thread, which I now deeply regret.

Your final question in your last week summary though is one I do wish to comment on.

I feel a massive crash is never good for anyone. What might then happen would be a decrease in available commodities to the very people who need it most. There are some farmers who might want to let food rot in the ground rather than sell it at a cratered price.

This is a complex issue. It is one where the people who suffer most are the ones with the least control.

.The "800 lb gorilla in the room" isn't the normal commercial part of the derivatives market which supports and provides liquidty , risk management and real price discovery for actual agricultural production and trades..it is the purely speculative ( non commercial part)

.I was assuming, perhaps incorrectly that the bottom could fall out of the speculative part of the market without impairing the commercial sector.Is that an incorrect assumption?

Would a crash in the purely speculative end of the market, the part where Goldman Sach, JP Mogan, Deutsche Bank and two or three others are making all their money in any way adversely impacts the commercial end of the market?

Wouldn't it just be spitting up the hairball and wouldn't prices then automatically correct to to theiir true equlibirum price?I am wondering too whether the New England Comples Systems Institute whose model prompted me to open this discussion could be expanded to try and model or predict the tipping point in the non-commercial end of commodities where price would stray so far from any realistic market fundamentals ( even the worst case fundamentals we have before us now) that they would just automatically blow themselves out.

Maybe they could also model whether that blow out would actually bring an immediate market equilibirum.The entire premise of this question has been that pure speculation, the non commercial part, needs to be taken out of markets so that food markets can "discover price" more acurately and establish a sustaianable vlable price equlibrium. The whole arguement in favor of allowing these non commercial funds to continue trading is that they have no impact on market fundamentals..so I just logically concluded that their demise of their own greed and gluttony would be a good thing and am only concerned it might not come in time.If we could predict it..it might hasten divestment

Oct 27 2011:
Lindsay
Yes the speculative might fall, but I think it would take months for "the real price" to balance itself out! During that period then I think you would find a decline in production and supply. It would be interesting to chart the supply side of the market against the speculative price. Obviously there would be a lag. It takes time to raise a hog or harvest corn. It is a balancing loop with a huge delay.

Could you post a link to the website on Complex Systems please? I have been an avid student of complex systems for years.

I have just been reading the technical appendix and trying to figure out whether they could adapt it to model what circumstances would prompt a speculative crash and also model how long it would take to reach a true price discovery, a true equilibrium. I think it could. Maybe it alreday has as I look at it..but I can't tell from the documentation that's there.

As you can see it is mainly a theoretical model..especiallythe piece on speculation where they added in and mapped the tipping point where speculation assists price discovery and then distorts it. I would be interested in your comments.

As you can see they are referring to this conversation in a long list of links which report on and analyse their model. I would be interested in your thoughts.

Just found this interesting blog which believes the speculative long only comodities bubble is alwalreday on the verge of blowing itself up as prices are now ( b force of market) within 2 or three deviations of market trends ( iow..have self corrected). He (Randall Wray) says when prices hit trend the speculative bubble will blow itself up and the market willalready be at price equilibirum..will alreday have returned to a true commercial price discovery.

Of course this isn't about food per se and the food bundled with other commodities in the big indexes eg Goldman Sachs. But I hope he's right. that would mean despite inevitably rising food prices ( from factors in fundamentals that can't be immediately corrected)..ther at least won't be an added inflation of pure speculation.

Also if this is good market analysis and only dumb money stays in as he is suggesting will be the case..all the more momentum for accelerated divestment of long only non-commercial food commodity price index funds. If divestment happenfed fast enough Goldman, JP Morhan and the big 5 who generate 70% of this business might take a well deserved major hit.

Oct 28 2011:
Agree Michael..that is the nature of complex systems..that relationships exist of which we are not aware

.I look forward to your analysis

.Also, I have asked whether the NECSI model can be used or expanded to visit that question..to predict whether any blow out of the purely speculative commodities derivatives would be strictly within that "community" with no splash over to the fundamentals

Oct 20 2011:
OXFAM gives us an opportunity to act as global citizens and make our views known to the G20 which is about to convene in Paris. At their website there is a petition which gives us a opportunity to express our concerns about the food crisis and about the role of speculation in pushing tens of millions more every year into chronic hunger.

Also at the their website is a truly excellent plain english paper which explains how and why world commodities markets allow pure gambling on food NOT A GAME:SPECULATION V FOOD SECURITY Regulating Financial Markets to Grow a Better Future ( Oct 3, 2011)

At the moment, food seurity seems to have been overs shadowed at the G20 by the european debt crisis. OXFAM is a strong and faithful voice for the world's hungry. An important quote from their excellent paper speaking directly to the question we are exploring in this conversation:

“The precise impact of speculation on food prices today remains disputed and cannot currently be proven,not least because of the lack of transparency of financial markets.6 However, this should not preclude action on the basisof legitimate and well-founded concerns” (P2)

"“ And because food price volatility can be a matter of life and death,a precautionary approach must be taken to speculating on agricultural commodities. Governments must act, domestically and together through multilateral mechanisms, to prevent harm by curbing excessive speculation through greater transparency and regulation.” (p2)

Oct 17 2011:
I helped create a website specifically designed to help people understand the problem of excessive speculation in commodities - www.stopgamblingonhunger.com. There is a lot of both background and up-to-date information on the subject. I can help you find numbers that you need, etc.

I just found this amazing article by William Engdahl ( June 29,2011) which put the world food crisis and the dismal outlook for food security/food access for the world's poorest in the context of a calculated, determined , long term global privatization of agriculture.

Reading this very simply written article it became crystal clear to me for the first time that both parts of the food crisis--the globally broken agricultural system and the explosive price escalating effects of pure speculation--are just parts of a global scheme of the privatization of agriculture

The food insecurity and food inadequacy caused to countless millions already, millions and million more to come is the "side effect" of the influence and control exerted by a handful of global agri business companies and financial institutions who are turning record profits on the food crisis

. The plutonomy holding us all hostage on the most basic elements of our ordinary lives

.Now that I understand both parts of the food crisis in the historical framework Wlliam Engdahl lays out, I am not at all optimistic that the G20 summit or the IOSCO reform initiative will deliver any meaningul long term correction to our broken global food system

.I am not at all optimistic that anyone would even consider or recognize the need for immediate measures to buffer the world's most vulnerable, the one third among us for whom food is a chronic issue, against the continuing rise of food prices, the continuing distortion and inflation of foodprices through pure speculation in the commodities markets.

The more I look and study. the more I wonder whether it's even possible to unwind any of this.

I haven’t found any data yet on what % of outstanding derivatives contracts are "non-commercial", nor any studies that try to isolate the effects of these " casino derivatives" on the market

.I think that is major problem with the whole debate on the effect s of speculation on food prices and global hunger. Most of the studies we have brought to this conversation make a generalized assumption that the drifting ,distorting, price elevating volume of trades in food are non-commercial index funds, purely speculative contracts.

Many of the white papers we have brought here describe and distinguish a “speculative contract” from a contract that provides liquidity to food markets but I have seen so far only one study that attempts to quantify how much of the food commodities trades are “non-commercial” (purely speculative).France’s intervention proposes classifying all funds as either speculative or commercial with a view to limiting speculative contracts but nit an out right ban on pure speculation.The UN FAO special Rapporteur urged this approach globally in a September 2010 advisory Food Commodities Speculation and Food Price Crises: Regulation to reduce the risks of price volatility“, De Schutter outlined steps to prevent improper speculation in the commodities derivatives market.

But until that data is available it seems unlikely the FAO or anyone else would support an immediate ban on all speculative food commities trading and therefore no protection for the millions about to fall into hunger